首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Undergraduate Science Students are Uncertain of How to Find Facts in E-books Compared to Print Books
【24h】

Undergraduate Science Students are Uncertain of How to Find Facts in E-books Compared to Print Books

机译:与印刷书籍相比,理科本科生不确定如何在电子书中找到事实

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective – To observe and compare the strategies that undergraduate science students use to perform information retrieval tasks in e-books and in print books. Design – Qualitative analysis, employing a “prompted think-aloud” methodology and thematic analysis. Setting – Taylor Library (serving the Faculty of Science), University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Subjects – Twenty undergraduate science students (11 females, 9 males) who had completed at least two years of study in Faculty of Science programs at the University of Western Ontario. Methods – Participants for the study were recruited through informational posters in Taylor Library, science departments, and in undergraduate science classes. Participants were assigned fact-finding tasks in e-book and print versions of eight health, computer science, and engineering textbooks and handbooks available in the Taylor Library. Book titles and tasks are included in a table in the study. Each student completed four tasks using e-books and four tasks using print books. Half of the participants performed tasks in print books first, and half began with tasks in e-books. Print books were “pre-selected” for each participant. The e-books were all from the same platform: Electronic Book Library. Participants were provided with a laptop computer to access the e-book versions, and a list of questions or facts to locate within each book. Following the methodology of Cotton & Gresty (2006), one researcher prompted students to verbalize actions while performing assigned tasks. A second researcher captured audio and video of the laptop screen as students individually conducted their e-book searches. A third researcher took notes on each session. An exit survey was given to each participant, asking about previous use, knowledge, and attitudes towards e-books. Thematic analysis was then used to examine the collected data. Main Results – Researchers identified four major themes from the data with regard to use of print versus e-books: linearon-linear strategies; tangible/intangible aspects of books; met/unmet expectations; and transferableon-transferable behaviours. Researchers found that participants tended to search print books in a linear fashion, whereas they approached e-books non-linearly. Physicality and familiarity with print books helped participants more readily find answers, compared to e-books, where students tried less successfully to mimic techniques used in print books to locate requested information. Participants used indexes in print books, versus e-books where they did not quickly identify the e-books as having them. The students expected that the e-books would behave as other web-based/online sources or search engines would (such as Google books), and commented that they did not. Transferable actions between print and e-books included developing and using keywords for searching. Conclusion – The authors of this study found that student participants did not know how to navigate the e-books presented to them compared with their print counterparts. There was a lack of awareness on the part of participants about e-books in general: the students were unaware that e-books were available through the library catalogue; they did not know that e-books have indexes as print books do; and did not know the differences among platforms offered by the library. All of these facts point to the importance of user education. The authors note the importance of testing of e-book platforms by students, faculty, and librarians prior to committing to purchase particular platforms. The authors note that more research is needed on user interaction with e-books, how e-books are used to assimilate information, and how groups other than undergraduates search e-books.
机译:目的–观察和比较大学理科学生用来在电子书和印刷书中执行信息检索任务的策略。设计–定性分析,采用“提示性思考”方法和主题分析。地点-加拿大安大略省伦敦市西安大略大学泰勒图书馆(服务于科学学院)。科目–二十名本科科学专业学生(11名女性,9名男性)在西安大略大学的理学院课程中完成了至少两年的学习。方法–该研究的参与者是通过泰勒图书馆,科学系以及大学科学课上的信息海报招募的。在泰勒图书馆中提供的八种健康,计算机科学和工程教科书及手册的电子书和印刷版中,为参加者分配了事实调查任务。书名和任务包含在研究的表格中。每个学生使用电子书完成四个任务,使用印刷书完成四个任务。一半的参与者首先在纸质书中执行任务,另一半则从电子书中的任务开始。为每个参与者“预选”了印刷书籍。电子书都来自同一平台:电子书图书馆。为参与者提供了一台便携式计算机以访问电子书版本,并为每本书提供了一系列问题或事实。按照《棉花与灰》(Cotton&Gresty,2006年)的方法,一位研究人员提示学生在执行分配的任务时要说出动作。当学生分别进行电子书搜索时,第二位研究人员捕获了笔记本电脑屏幕的音频和视频。第三位研究人员在每次会议上做笔记。对每个参与者进行了退出调查,询问以前的使用,知识和对电子书的态度。然后使用主题分析检查收集的数据。主要结果–研究人员从数据中确定了印刷和电子书使用的四个主要主题:线性/非线性策略;书籍的有形/无形方面;达到/未达到期望;以及可转让/不可转让的行为。研究人员发现,参与者倾向于以线性方式搜索印刷书籍,而他们则非线性地访问电子书。与电子书相比,物理性和对印刷书的熟悉帮助参与者更容易地找到答案,在电子书中,学生尝试模仿印刷书中使用的技术来定位所需信息的尝试不太成功。参与者在印刷书中使用索引,而在电子书中索引不能快速识别为具有电子书的人。学生期望电子书的行为与其他基于Web的/在线资源或搜索引擎(例如Google图书)的行为相同,并评论说它们没有。印刷书籍和电子书之间的可转移动作包括开发和使用关键字进行搜索。结论–这项研究的作者发现,与印刷品同行相比,学生参与者不知道如何浏览呈现给他们的电子书。参加者总体上对电子书缺乏意识:学生们不知道可以从图书馆目录中获得电子书。他们不知道电子书像印刷书一样具有索引;并且不知道该库提供的平台之间的差异。所有这些事实都指出了用户教育的重要性。作者指出,在承诺购买特定平台之前,由学生,教师和图书馆员测试电子书平台的重要性。作者指出,还需要对用户与电子书的交互,如何使用电子书吸收信息以及除大学生以外的其他群体如何搜索电子书进行更多研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号